Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 4, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PST

11:00 pm
report. data processing center. that is the level of noise. you have for the past four or five years at least the noise standards on all kinds of plants. the supervisor's legislation that regulates noise near freeways. you have had all of your input for the past 10 years from the department of public health. there are mechanical noise standards in the police code that are the wrong standards. they are to mitigate the noise of equipment on a site. it is ok to go to vacuum cleaner level noise on the site when there are people that have their yards here. you need to listen to the city. no patio. they do not care. pollo campero is coming to the
11:01 pm
city. this is the wrong space. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the neighborhood association. our association is composed of nonprofit residence in the area. we have met with folks from pollo campero and we have voted in support of it coming to mission street. they are not just forming a retail company. they are not like mcdonald's or popeyes on mission street. one of the things that is different is the local jobs they are going to create. they are going to provide training and management that a lot of small businesses are not able to provide. they came here, not with a model to put into the
11:02 pm
neighborhood, but the idea was to get the model from the neighborhood. we have talked about healthy menu options. we are concerned about the types of foods being consumed in the neighborhood. they are going to work with local youth from city college. they are going to provide the employees with very good benefits compared to a lot of other businesses in the neighborhood. this is the kind of business we do want in the neighborhood. this is not a fast-food restaurant. it is going to be more like a full-service restaurant. we need to help the local economy. i do understand neighbor's concern. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice-president miguel: to me, this is a little bit difficult. there are several questions
11:03 pm
involved. i would like to ask the architect, how are you handling your garbage? >> commissioners, the rear patio was not only house the refrigeration instrument but we set aside for storage. also, this is something that restaurant ownership passed to
11:04 pm
manage. this is from the patio. they will bring the dishes inside and put them into the dishwasher. eventually, we will have to move that garbage bin to the front street. we will use rubber wheels on that. >> thank you. the conditions of approval seem to me to differ from other conditions of approval,
11:05 pm
particularly where there is patio seating involved. they do not reference hours of operation. >> that is correct. the department would be willing to add suitable hours of operation controls. it could be from 10:00 until 10:00 or whenever the commission feels is necessary. >> this is the situation of a very major neighborhood commercial district. i appreciate the concerns of the neighbors on bartlett street. they reside and bought projects and housing that backs into a major commercial district. one has to assume that there will be permitted commercial
11:06 pm
uses. that would include the entire lot. that is standard. commercial uses are not limited to a portion of the lot. i am not going to gointo healthy food, fast food, and all of that. i wonder if we would consider this differently if it was a k fc. the websites says 340 restaurants worldwide. you might start to make that comparison. as far as the hiring comments, training comments, that is something that this commission and planning department has no ability to enforce. it does not go into our conditions of approval. we have to literally disregard
11:07 pm
that. that is not up to was whatsoever. i asked about a garbage because i presume that is how it is being handled. i would like to hear from our other commissioners. i myself would not vote for this if the conditions of approval showed any action other than the removal of garbage in the patio past 8:00 in the evening. that does not mean starting seating at 8:00. that means anything other than the removal of garbage after 8:00. that would be the most i would give. >> commissioner antony. -- antonini. commissioner antonini: i think this promises to be a benefit and something desirable to the neighborhood in doubt it
11:08 pm
activates a vacant storefront. they are not to serve any alcohol. they will deploy -- employs 70 people and restore the store front. they have done adequate about reached. many groups have come up and spoken about the art reached. they have made it clear what the restaurant is and what their menu will consist of. what is of concern is the neighbors issues on the rear apartment street. i was encouraged to see how many neighbors have come out and are making it their own and are raising their children. i actually visited the site and i was able to go into the patio. a couple of thing struck me. somebody talked about line of sight. only if you are 20 feet tall are you going to have a line of site. i think it is about 5 feet below
11:09 pm
grade now and then there is a six-foot fence. they have to put a ladder there and climb to the top of the latter. then i could just peer over the top. they intend to put the fence up any higher. i do not think we will have a line of sight issue or a security issue unless somebody pull faults -- pole vaults into the yards. what does concern me is the noise. i have heard from the noise rep. i look at his report carefully -- looked and his report carefully. his report says that the noise level would be that of conversation. the highest level would be 54 decibels, according to his
11:10 pm
report, which is the sound in the adjacent backyards. the sound of the house would be in the 20's and the 30's. this was his report. there was another report done by another consultant. it is hard to really know what the truth of the matter is going to be. i think they are putting in a lot of muffling material around there. i think they're running expected sounds. i would be in favor of having some sort of condition where it came back to us in six months or a year and we had somebody from the city, out and monitor and let's really find out what the noise levels are and what they are reported to be. the same would be true of of whether they are successful in capturing those that come out of there. i do agree with commissioner
11:11 pm
miguel. when you move into a street light bartlett and you have a beautiful backyard, you are enjoying the neighborhood commercial area, much like what on chestnut street or on union or on 24th street, you have many restaurants that have backdoor dining areas and patio's. this is a very common thing. it was expected that this would probably happened in this area, too. i fully support some sort of monitoring of this test to see a bank it was disruptive. if it work, the commission could decide whether further mitigation would be necessary, whether that be enclosure or further sound vacation. it would have to be somebody from the city to do it. it is one used that i could support. i certainly support the
11:12 pm
neighbor's concerns. >> as commissioner miguel said, we shouldn't enter into this discussion. should the project sponsor rep -- is your organization, the restaurant organization vertically integrated? by that i mean, some other people have testified that you guys not only run restaurants, but you also raise chickens and grow products. >> we do not. >> can you tell me where you are going to buy your chickens? >> the chicken is being bought through tysons. it is bought in the u.s. we do not bring chicken from
11:13 pm
guatemala or anything of that sort. they will be sourced locally. >> with respect to lighting on the patio, you have the shown on the drawings. i am assuming that those are all down let. nothing is going to go up vertically. >> as a condition of approval, i submit that all of the lighting will be soft lighting, in downe lighting. >> thank you. commissioner miguel, is it my understanding from your question that the trash is being stored in the utility area? they would have to take it out
11:14 pm
to the front. vice-president miguel: they would have to take it out. commissioner"l sugaya: my own position is that i think it is the wrong use in the wrong place. maybe it is the right use, but it is in the wrong place. it seems to me that other patio situations that are recall do not have quite the amount of back yards on both sides of the property. the area is basically surrounded by backyards on three sides. it just seems like, despite the battling between two sound experts, i do not believe you can muffle the noise to the extent that people say it is going to be. i would not live there if there
11:15 pm
was a patio there. to say that people should realize when they bought the property, they should have realized they were next to commercial areas, i think they did realize they were next to commercial buildings. several people have said that. what they did not expect was that there would be an increased amount of activity, especially restaurant activity in the open space in the rear of this building and the adjacent building. i do not oppose the use in terms of it being in the building. it seems to me strange that the whole premise behind the building is that 50% or more of the seating is out in the back. i just sympathize with the
11:16 pm
neighbors on this one, i guess. >> commissioner moore. >> on the same note, i am concerned that we are talking about a residential area between two different land uses. we have a school and commercial use, which creates for residential, a difficult situation. we usually have residential against residential. the fact that this particular area has an open space i think creates a problem of separation between the commercial use. typically, what you have on mission street is not backyard patios. you have businesses that operate inside with the yard areas and simple buildings away from the residential to create a buffer between the massiveness of the
11:17 pm
commercial buildings as a transition between the backyard and the residential. it is almost like a change in land use. there are no other restaurants that does use outdoor open space on the commercial property. well i am very much in support for the restaurant to be in this area, this might not be exactly the right property. i wonder about the business model. i do not have an mba. i find it unusual to open a restaurant in san francisco with 40 outdoor seating and 20-seat indoor seating given that our weather come up for turley this winter, has been such that you cannot even sit outside. it is too cold, it is too windy, and it rains. i do not think that this part of
11:18 pm
mission street is sunny. i cannot use that as an argument to disapprove. i do believe that it's somehow forces this our port area to have most of it patrons being outside. 40 people outside in a very small space to at least create ambient noise which is always present. i do believe that that is somewhat interfering with residential use, particularly the bedrooms and private use on bartlett. on their front doors, they already have enough to contend with with the ever-present ambien to noise of the school. i find the outdoor use to the degree of intensity questionable.
11:19 pm
i also find the hours of operation to long. they are far too long periods -- too long. they are far too long. perhaps a site might be better than this. >> commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i would like to talk to the project sponsor about looking for spaces in the mission and what is wrong with those bases and if somebody could speak to that issue. -- those spaces and if somebody could speak to that issue. >> i work with pllo campero in the area of development. we have been looking in the
11:20 pm
mission district for 10 years for the right property. things go in and out and they go along quickly. we have looked at this property for almost a year. we needed a sizable amount of space to do our business. there was not anything in the mission that gave us the exposure. we liked the fact that the patio, i personally have lived in san francisco for 12 years. we loved the outdoor dining. we thought that would provide a nice complement to what we do. we are all about families enjoying themselves. we saw this being an ideal spot for us within the mission district. >> out of curiosity, and do your other locations have a large amount of the outdoor seating? >> some of them have fairly large outside patios.
11:21 pm
we are a sub-franchisee. we have at 13 locations in los angeles. we are a franchisee. we are located in the neighborhoods in los angeles. the issues are a little bit different in terms of the youth there. los angeles is not a pedestrian community. we have more drive through in los angeles. that is the business in l.a. where we do have patios, they are used quite often. we wanted to be part of the mission district. we wanted to make this very specific to the san francisco environment. we felt this would be a beautiful way to be part of the community. i have heard a lot of people talk about the beauty of the
11:22 pm
outdoors. they like to experience this with family. this is a family restaurant. we are not meant to serve beer and wine. we manage noise levels. we make sure that people keep down the noise. we will make sure that this is a great spot for us. we contribute and not to the economy. we really like the community. >> what about the discussion of enclosing the patio? >> the problem with enclosing the patio that it is an extremely expensive proposition. it would probably prohibit us off from having any kind of a return if we had to have that kind of investment. it totally in closing the patio out of our reach. >> i do not really know the technology. our neighborhood has some sort of retractable roof that shots and off. >> we had talked about doing some sort of this. to them, that was not
11:23 pm
acceptable. they did not see any acceptable use of the patio of us it was totally enclosed. that creates other code issues. >> what about providing more of a buffer space? using only half of the patio for the restaurant and leaving the other half open. >> that will probably limit the amount of business we could do. that would probably be detrimental. san francisco is not the cheapest place to do business. the cost of labor and what not is so much more expensive for a lower margin type of restaurant. we do not make a lot of margin on our product. for us to be able to do things and support the people, we need to have a decent amount of seating that we can provide. >> thanks for the questions that you have answered.
11:24 pm
you can sit down. >> for me, this is a tough one as well. there seems to be support. there seems to be a willingness to work with the neighborhood and provide jobs. 175 people have signed on for jobs. there is the issue of compatibility with the adjacent neighbors. what are you -- you are hearing is not the idea to happen -- not have a go in the mission. the idea is, is this the right location? there are a number of issues brought up by people in the neighborhood that i wish you would work out if you have additional people in the neighborhood. our issue is, is it necessary or desirable for the threshold of conditional use? i think we said that there are some desirability factors.
11:25 pm
there are also some undesirable factors as well. from that threshold, it is really hard, as the restaurant is currently proposed, to support it, not because we do not support the concept, but because from the point of view of the code, there are challenges. there are 20 vacancies on mission street. i cannot imagine there would not be another space that would suit the company's needs. and you are in negotiations with the people you are in negotiations with, but at this time my by seems to be it would make a lot more sense to find another space that might be more compatible that you could either have more interceding -- indoor seating or back patio seating that is more compatible with the neighborhood. if there was some way to enclose the hypatia space, reduce the hypatia space, or cut back the hours, that would be something i would consider, but i do not know what other commissioners
11:26 pm
are thinking. commissioner moore: i think my concerns with the project -- vice president miguel: -- president olague: i think my concerns to the project are promises made to the community about employee -- employment and things. it is nice to have the community benefits agreement in place that was may be negotiated through the supervisor's office, or something along those lines. there is an organization i have worked with in the past that i fully respect. the of mostly from central america, most of the members. they do have a lot of concerns around -- obviously, the women who spoke spoke a lot about health issues and the type of menu. i was glad to hear that you agreed to remove the burritos item from the thing, because that definitely would cut into some of the other locally-owned smaller businesses that are
11:27 pm
there in the mission. so i am a little bit, i guess, disappointed that that sort of an agreement is not in place. i know there are verbal assurances, but that is never as, what is the word, as solid as if we had some actual community benefits practice the was drafted and agreed upon by all parties. that being said, actually, i think that looking at the plan, mr. sanchez, if you could come up -- isn't there quite a lot of space still between the patio and the neighbor's backyard areas, i think? is there? can you show us? just to kind of -- because i
11:28 pm
think it looks like that might be what becomes the point of discussion here ultimately. >> i believe this area here -- that area is actually being used right now by the owners of this property. >> right. >> but it looks like the use is going to be all in here, the patio use. >> it is pretty close. >> i think part of the issue i have is that, again, mission street is a neighborhood commercial district, you know? it is an area that is a vital commercial district in san francisco. and i would not want to put a lot of prohibitions on and start a precedent where we are prohibiting what business can do along a neighborhood commercial corridor. i think we have two dangerous precedents we are looking at
11:29 pm
here. you have union street. you have filmore st.. you have all these but the commercial corridors, the visitor wrote. we want to be able to kind of encouraged fatality along these corridors, and although there are neighbors that are going to be affected that are adjacent, i think we do need to take that into consideration, and maybe even the six months or whatever, we can come back. we have done that in the castro because we have had similar concerns raised by neighbors there. i also do not want to kind of tie the hands of businesses that want to go into these areas. so that is where i think we have to look at some of that. it is a huge corporation that is international. international. i am sometimes deluding myself